2012/3/27 Mark Claassen <markclaass...@gmail.com>: > > I did a quick performance test, and it is true that the default mechanism > is quite a bit faster than the standard JULI logger. For this test, I just > modified the source code to write each log message 1000 times. The first > set of timings (in millis) is from the current AccessLogValve, and the > second set is using JULI. > > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 8 > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 19 > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 63 > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 6 > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 7 > AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 8 > > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 830 > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 1122 > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 451 > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 531 > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 764 > INFO: AccessLogValve Elapsed Time: 347 >
1. Try to configure JULI with org.apache.juli.AsyncFileHandler. It might show better numbers. (The usual FileHandler by default performs flush() after each log message). 2. Is the same printed to console? If yes then remove ConsoleHandler. Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
